Quietly, ESPN shunting aside FCS TV coverage?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Many local broadcast networks are the main carrier for FCS games on TV. At Lehigh, WMFZ Channel 69 was the main broadcast partner for years, and while Service Electric is now the main source for Lehigh home games, WFMZ still produces and broadcasts some games outside the Lehigh blackout area. Over the years, it's been a vital source of certain Lehigh broadcasts.

That's why I read the following release with alarm:

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/09/wfmz-tv_partners_with_espn_to.html


WFMZ-TV has partnered with ESPN this college football season to televise Big East and Mid-American Conference (MAC) games, according to a press release from the station today.

The coverage will start with Central Michigan vs. Western Michigan at Noon on Saturday. At 6 p.m. Saturday, WFMZ will air the Lehigh at Princeton game.

It seems like this - for now, anyway - is meant to complement their coverage of Lehigh football, not replace it. But there's no reason for MAC, or even Big East, football to really exist on WMFZ 69 in regards to the Lehigh area. There is no groundswell of support that I'm aware of to see Western Michigan play Central Michigan, nor even Rutgers at Syracuse, another game they're picking up.

Even more odd is that the one lone MAC team that anyone may care a whit about - Temple, which is an hour and a half away from Lehigh - isn't even represented in their package this year.

Am I overreacting? Is this no big deal? Or is it ESPN muscling into an FCS territory in an effort towards shunting FCS football off of TV sets to internet broadcasts exclusively?

[bluehenbillk]

The more college football on TV the better. ESPN cares about one thing - ratings.

[appfan2008]

Exactly... the more people that watch the more it gets shown...

[DFW HOYA]

In a word, yes.

Eventually, ESPN3.com will become the dumping ground of anything below the superconferences.

[MplsBison]

In a word, yes.

Eventually, ESPN3.com will become the dumping ground of anything below the superconferences.

Fine with me, I love watching games on espn3. Tons of games to pick from and I get it for free with my ISP.

Not ESPN's fault that old people are scared of the internet or can not figure out how to plug a HDMI cable into their computer & tv and push the "input" button a few times.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

In a word, yes.

Eventually, ESPN3.com will become the dumping ground of anything below the superconferences.

The dumping ground? In a few short years more people will be watching EVERYTHING on internet feeds than on normal TV broadcasts.

Hell, you'll be able to have a TV broadcast of anything that people want to watch for a minimum cost and even small conferences or teams could have their own network if they feel like it.

On top of that it will be extremely competitive instead of just having one outlet decide what you can watch. That seems like a pretty good thing to me.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Fine with me, I love watching games on espn3. Tons of games to pick from and I get it for free with my ISP.

Not ESPN's fault that old people are scared of the internet or can not figure out how to plug a HDMI cable into their computer & tv and push the "input" button a few times.

ESPN3 is one of the best things to happen to FCS coverage ever. Well, channelsurfing was but since it's gone...

[MplsBison]

The dumping ground? In a few short years more people will be watching EVERYTHING on internet feeds than on normal TV broadcasts.

Hell, you'll be able to have a TV broadcast of anything that people want to watch for a minimum cost and even small conferences or teams could have their own network if they feel like it.

On top of that it will be extremely competitive instead of just having one outlet decide what you can watch. That seems like a pretty good thing to me.

I wish it was going to be that simple.

Cable networks are in cahoots with content studios to make sure things don't switch over too fast to internet distribution, in order to preserve as much profit from traditional cable TV service until the big networks can figure out how to control internet content distribution in some equally profitable fashion.


IMO - any channel that is broadcast for free now over the air should be available for free streaming online and any program that is broadcast on a cable channel should be available for stream for a fee (or if they were smart they'd also make it free and pay for it with advertising). But that would ruin everything that the cable networks have built up over the last 30 years - they won't allow that to happen.

Oh well, there's always bit torrent.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I wish it was going to be that simple.

Cable networks are in cahoots with content studios to make sure things don't switch over too fast to internet distribution, in order to preserve as much profit from traditional cable TV service until the big networks can figure out how to control internet content distribution in some equally profitable fashion.


IMO - any channel that is broadcast for free now over the air should be available for free streaming online and any program that is broadcast on a cable channel should be available for stream for a fee (or if they were smart they'd also make it free and pay for it with advertising). But that would ruin everything that the cable networks have built up over the last 30 years - they won't allow that to happen.

Oh well, there's always bit torrent.

This is a problem and exactly why I was arguing with kalm on CS last year about Net Nuetrality. We do not give the FCC power willingly and they can't screw with the small guys because of the money the big cable companies are willing to spend to keep us under their thumb.

I know they are gonna fight it but it will come and the more people that start jumping ship on them the sooneer their card house falls.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Or is it ESPN muscling into an FCS territory in an effort towards shunting FCS football off of TV sets to internet broadcasts exclusively?

Underhanded Georgetown conspiracy.

[RichH2]

In a word, yes.

Eventually, ESPN3.com will become the dumping ground of anything below the superconferences. Exactly true, unless CBS or Versus start broadening the pool. ESPN crawl has even cut back drastically showing FCS scores. Too often this season already I've noticed in the afternoon , I'l see FCS coming up and then all it shows is the time for the HBCU game of the week over on ESPNU but no scores. One of the columnists opined that soon we will have 1 superconference of BCS schools unaffiliated with Ncaa, probably owned an operated by Disney

[darell1976]

Thank God for the Fighting Sioux Sports Network. I get to watch all of Sioux hockey and a few games of football and basketball on either FSSN and Fox College Sports.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Thank God for the Fighting Sioux Sports Network. I get to watch all of Sioux hockey and a few games of football and basketball on either FSSN and Fox College Sports.

Watch hockey!xlolx

That's a good one darell!

[darell1976]

Watch hockey!xlolx

That's a good one darell!

Yes hockey that niche sports some fans (I don't have to tell you from what school) throw at us all the time. Its kind of a big sport over here and in the northeast. Also big enough now that other teams of FBS proportion is thinking of adding. Could you imagine USC or Alabama playing hockey?? It may come true, look at Penn State.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yes hockey that niche sports some fans (I don't have to tell you from what school) throw at us all the time. Its kind of a big sport over here and in the northeast. Also big enough now that other teams of FBS proportion is thinking of adding. Could you imagine USC or Alabama playing hockey?? It may come true, look at Penn State.
Not only could I not imagine it, I wouldn't give it a thought at all.

I know you boys like it though so just thought I'd try and get a little nose tweakin' in since the opportunity arose.xlolx

Last year before the MT/UND game I met up with Hambone and a few of the other UND guys at Red's and they were all watching the game. They were having a good time and one of the guys asked how I didn't care about hockey at all? I told him it means absolutely zero to me and always has and once UND is in the BSC they are gonna find discussing it pretty lonely with the conference mates when they are at other game sites.

The dudes were all a lot of fun so good for them in having something to watch.

[darell1976]

Not only could I not imagine it, I wouldn't give it a thought at all.

I know you boys like it though so just thought I'd try and get a little nose tweakin' in since the opportunity arose.xlolx

Last year before the MT/UND game I met up with Hambone and a few of the other UND guys at Red's and they were all watching the game. They were having a good time and one of the guys asked how I didn't care about hockey at all? I told him it means absolutely zero to me and always has and once UND is in the BSC they are gonna find discussing it pretty lonely with the conference mates when they are at other game sites.

The dudes were all a lot of fun so good for them in having something to watch.

Let me say unless your city or even your area have a hockey team the interest is low, aka Atlanta Thrashers moving back to Winnipeg. A lot of people here in Fargo are die hard Bison fans in sports but since UND has hockey they cheer for the Sioux too (just in hockey). Hockey barely survives in the south except LA and maybe Dallas. But its wierd that Florida has 2 teams, Phoenix has a team, but yet Canada has just 7 (including Winnipeg). Montana has no teams, South Dakota has no teams, thats why its big in ND and MN. Next to the Bison our biggest rival is the Gophers. I am glad you guys had fun, and I hope to take a trip to Montana soon to see UND play both Montana teams.

[alvinkayak6]

One of the columnists opined that soon we will have 1 superconference of BCS schools unaffiliated with Ncaa, probably owned an operated by Disney

Unnamed columnists are morons then. 1 conference? Owned by Disney....well, okay....I can see that indirectly.

[MplsBison]

This is a problem and exactly why I was arguing with kalm on CS last year about Net Nuetrality. We do not give the FCC power willingly and they can't screw with the small guys because of the money the big cable companies are willing to spend to keep us under their thumb.

I know they are gonna fight it but it will come and the more people that start jumping ship on them the sooneer their card house falls.

Big cable networks all know it's coming. Technology wise, I don't see why the internet couldn't support a solely streaming distribution of content right now.

Again, it comes back to profit.

If Comcast, Time Warner, etc. just threw up their hands and said "ok, we're just going to provide data to people and rent them cable modems", then some company or companies would fill in that distributor role and rake in big bucks.


No, they're not going to have that. Probably what will happen is you'll have some webpage and an app for tablets and smartphones where it's like cable over the internet. You log in and based on how much you pay for service you get a menu of which channels you can stream in. That way they can also keep tiered service and bundled channels - all those 'oldies but goodies' that cable networks have forced on consumers to keep profits high.

Government ain't gonna do nothing about it - the big companies just buy off politicians with campaign donations. It takes millions to run for any serious political office.

[MplsBison]

Not only could I not imagine it, I wouldn't give it a thought at all.

I know you boys like it though so just thought I'd try and get a little nose tweakin' in since the opportunity arose.xlolx

Last year before the MT/UND game I met up with Hambone and a few of the other UND guys at Red's and they were all watching the game. They were having a good time and one of the guys asked how I didn't care about hockey at all? I told him it means absolutely zero to me and always has and once UND is in the BSC they are gonna find discussing it pretty lonely with the conference mates when they are at other game sites.

The dudes were all a lot of fun so good for them in having something to watch.

Hockey is definitely a cult sport.

I imagine it's hard to get into if you didn't play.

[dgtw]

Yes hockey that niche sports some fans (I don't have to tell you from what school) throw at us all the time. Its kind of a big sport over here and in the northeast. Also big enough now that other teams of FBS proportion is thinking of adding. Could you imagine USC or Alabama playing hockey?? It may come true, look at Penn State.

what do you mean Alabama doesn't have a hockey team?

http://www.uahchargers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=116&Itemid=251

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Try this

http://channelsurfing.ws/

[Bogus Megapardus]

Try this

http://channelsurfing.ws/


Actually, don't. It's not the same people, and it just links to another site that isn't what it proclaims to be, either. There are much better sources.

[darell1976]

what do you mean Alabama doesn't have a hockey team?

http://www.uahchargers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=116&Itemid=251

I listed examples of FBS teams adding hockey. Alabama-Huntsville is not a FBS team, and I knew the state of Alabama has hockey.

[dgtw]

I knew what you meant, the UAH link was just a joke.

I doubt any southern FBS schools will be adding hockey. It would be a major expense in places with little or no hockey fan base. Yes, there are southern NHL teams, but most SEC schools are in small cities.

They'd also have to add a woman's sport if they did hockey. The SEC requires members to have two more women's sports than men's.

I'm glad you support your hockey team, but it is a niche regional sport with little room to expand.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think people are missing the point of the entire discussion.

This has nothing to do with the internet and things that are streamed live - which, despite its growth, is still a mere fraction of the number of eyeballs glued to regular TV sets. It's about a cable company, giving content to a over-the-air local TV network, potentially crowding out coverage of their local FCS team in order to show... Central Michigan vs. Western Michigan.

It's fine to believe in a world of designing your TV own content packages, all for free, while just paying your ISP a monthly fee to "broadcast" the content in your home. But the truth is that: if channels like WFMZ 69 stop broadcasting FCS football games, that's a real bad development for FCS football in general. I mean, all of us here are crazy, wiring our homes to stream ESPN3 and our favorite FCS teams clearly through our flat-screen TVs. But there are a heck of a lot more people in a general local community that will tune to a Lehigh game on WFMZ 69, but will never go through the "hassle" of getting the games online.

In urban areas, these battles have been waged and, largely, lost. But channels in less urban areas, like WFMZ 69, seem to be a new front on the battlefield, and it seems like the potential death knell of something that most of us take for granted.

For example, suppose North Dakota's NBC stations said, "We've just secured a deal where we'll now be broadcasting more Notre Dame and Pac-12 football, and as for your Fightin' Sioux and Bison games, well, there's always the internet." Would that really be acceptable? Would all those fans that follow North Dakota football that losing access to the games - would that really be OK, for the Universities or the fans?

[alvinkayak6]

It's about a cable company, giving content to a over-the-air local TV network, potentially crowding out coverage of their local FCS team in order to show... Central Michigan vs. Western Michigan.

And what's next a 9/11 conspiracy theory? C'mon everybody knows that ESPN is a great company that has public interest in mind at all times. xlolx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

And what's next a 9/11 conspiracy theory? C'mon everybody knows that ESPN is a great company that has public interest in mind at all times. xlolx

How, exactly, does ESPN profit from this? Expanded TV revenue? The extra 0.01 Nielsen rating the ABE area will give its MAC games? Please, entertain us with your reasoning as to how ESPN is rolling in so much more money with this. Those advertisers are really going to shell out the big bucks, now that Central Michigan has penetrated the Eastern Pennsylvania market? Really?

[alvinkayak6]

How, exactly, does ESPN profit from this? Expanded TV revenue? The extra 0.01 Nielsen rating the ABE area will give its MAC games? Please, entertain us with your reasoning as to how ESPN is rolling in so much more money with this. Those advertisers are really going to shell out the big bucks, now that Central Michigan has penetrated the Eastern Pennsylvania market? Really?

Because ESPN & Disney are selling you a narrative for advertising. The FCS distracts from the narrative because it has an actual championship and actual scholar-athletes.

[Purple7]

....interesting article . . .

SAN FRANCISCO—Looking back at the college football landscape of our past, those forces with the biggest impact on the game were well known: the heavy-handed coach, the hard-pressing quarterback—or if you found yourself in the open-air stands in the Midwest in November—the weather.

Now, it's technology that has cemented itself as one of the more powerful forces impacting college football today.

CLOSE COLLABORATORS

For years now, college football has been a media-savvy chessboard, a place where championship games have corporate sponsors and entire teams are outfitted in logo-heavy gear.

As a result, television and college football have become ever more intertwined. Cable and broadcast networks from ESPN to Fox to NBC have become active participants in the shakeup of the nation's college football conferences in way never previously seen.

see article at: http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/124158

[kdinva]

And what's next a 9/11 conspiracy theory? C'mon everybody knows that ESPN is a great company that has public interest in mind at all times. xlolx

I enjoy the ESPN coverage of people playing cards..... xasswhipx ........next they'll feature the Canadian Curling League. xlmaox ...in lieu of FCS football.

[TheBisonator]

I think people are missing the point of the entire discussion.

This has nothing to do with the internet and things that are streamed live - which, despite its growth, is still a mere fraction of the number of eyeballs glued to regular TV sets. It's about a cable company, giving content to a over-the-air local TV network, potentially crowding out coverage of their local FCS team in order to show... Central Michigan vs. Western Michigan.

It's fine to believe in a world of designing your TV own content packages, all for free, while just paying your ISP a monthly fee to "broadcast" the content in your home. But the truth is that: if channels like WFMZ 69 stop broadcasting FCS football games, that's a real bad development for FCS football in general. I mean, all of us here are crazy, wiring our homes to stream ESPN3 and our favorite FCS teams clearly through our flat-screen TVs. But there are a heck of a lot more people in a general local community that will tune to a Lehigh game on WFMZ 69, but will never go through the "hassle" of getting the games online.

In urban areas, these battles have been waged and, largely, lost. But channels in less urban areas, like WFMZ 69, seem to be a new front on the battlefield, and it seems like the potential death knell of something that most of us take for granted.

For example, suppose North Dakota's NBC stations said, "We've just secured a deal where we'll now be broadcasting more Notre Dame and Pac-12 football, and as for your Fightin' Sioux and Bison games, well, there's always the internet." Would that really be acceptable? Would all those fans that follow North Dakota football that losing access to the games - would that really be OK, for the Universities or the fans?

Note: North Dakota's NBC stations have a contract with NDSU only. UND's games are shown on their own network.

[darell1976]

I knew what you meant, the UAH link was just a joke.

I doubt any southern FBS schools will be adding hockey. It would be a major expense in places with little or no hockey fan base. Yes, there are southern NHL teams, but most SEC schools are in small cities.

They'd also have to add a woman's sport if they did hockey. The SEC requires members to have two more women's sports than men's.

I'm glad you support your hockey team, but it is a niche regional sport with little room to expand.

Its hard to tell if someone is joking on a message board without a smilie. The south does have club teams so southern hockey is there but only 1 at the DI level.

[darell1976]

Note: North Dakota's NBC stations have a contract with NDSU only. UND's games are shown on their own network.

I was just going to say fine with us we have our own network, while NDSU would get out the pitchforks. But I see what you mean. In DII the only games on tv was UND-NDSU on our statewide ABC station then NDSU struck a deal with our NBC network while UND got their own network and just in the last couple years struck a deal with Fox College Sports. But in the end its all about the ratings!! Ratings =$$$

[Bogus Megapardus]

I agree with LFN here. It would be interesting to to see some figures on how many smaller markets with FCS football (for example, Lehigh Valley, Albany, New Haven, Greensboro, Des Moines) have independent television stations that regularly broadcast games. The Lehigh Valley might well be unique in that regard - it has two different independent stations each broadcasting one of its two FCS schools.

Are webcasts an alternative? Well I suppose so. The quality is improving (especially ESPN3). You have to have the right cameras and equipment, of course - you can't expect simply to set up a webcam and think it's going to look like Monday Night Football.

But I can pick up both independent Lehigh Valley television stations from Princeton, NJ using a simple, indoor "rabbit ear" antenna. I know a thing or two about computers and I have plenty of hdmi cable, but I like just flicking on channel 60 and letting them do the work. It's ego-boosting, too. Guests are impressed, and I can tell others just to "tune into WBPH" rather than emailing detailed instructions on how to center balance a dual-screen video output and hunt down a DVI-to-hdmi adapter from "Cables Unlimited." Trouble coordinating your output resolution with your television's presets? Well, that's another story.

The football "consolidators," as I call them, want to homogenize the "BCS experience" and still call it "college football." They want to make it feel like the NFL. I can just imagine if Lehigh's channel 69 starts broadcasting Temple games, and Lafayette's channel 60 picks up Penn State instead. The "consolidators" will tell them that fans will be more excited about this move because both teams, even with mediocre .500 records, probably will be in the "earn a spot in the post season" (for which they had no competition) and "be in a big bowl game" (for which they were picked subjectively without having to win anything). Fans don't have to be disappointed that their local teams didn't reach the FCS finals. They're now "guaranteed" a "bowl team" - and with clever marketing sleight-of-hand, they'll be convinced that the team actually did something extraordinary in order to deserve to be there.

Whoop-de-do, Basil, what does it all mean? Well it means that the Patriot (perhaps in conjunction with the Ivy or the NEC) has to get its act together an make PL football a league-wide reality. This seems to be one thing that Lafayette actually is good at, so it would be us to us to lead the way, I suppose. The LSN producers could be hired by the League Office, each school could chip in, and we could have local coverage on a broadcast station in each PL market. I think we have to be a little pushy about it, actually.

Georgetown can be carved out, of course, due to the dynamic, high-visibility, "exclusive" TV deal it already has in place. We wouldn't want to mess with that, lest the FiOS Nazis get after us and hire Jackie Chiles to sue. Lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Because ESPN & Disney are selling you a narrative for advertising. The FCS distracts from the narrative because it has an actual championship and actual scholar-athletes.

I'm trying to figure out this narrative you're talking about. "You definitely want to advertise your ED drugs on this ESPN3 Western Michigan/Central Michigan matchup, Gene. It has penetration into the Philadelphia market!" If Gene is so keen on advertising his drugs on a crappy MAC game, is it likely that coverage on a tiny, independent station in Eastern PA is going to be the tipping point?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Whoop-de-do, Basil, what does it all mean? Well it means that the Patriot (perhaps in conjunction with the Ivy or the NEC) has to get its act together an make PL football a league-wide reality. This seems to be one thing that Lafayette actually is good at, so it would be us to us to lead the way, I suppose. The LSN producers could be hired by the League Office, each school could chip in, and we could have local coverage on a broadcast station in each PL market. I think we have to be a little pushy about it, actually.

PL football, technically, is a "league-wide reality", with the CBS College Sports carrying two games this year and a bunch of local stations carrying the games CBS College Sports can't/won't carry. And the local stations vary wildly: from independent WFMZ 69 and Channel 60 locally, to SE2 (Service Electric) cable for Lehigh home games, to RCN cable for all Lafayette, Verizon for Georgetown, to Time Warner for Colgate.

I've just mentioned two independent stations and four different cable companies, and there's even more than that with their toes into Patriot League football. And this doesn't even begin to describe the other distribution deals on other networks, like Fox College Sports or MASN, that are also involved.

It's a complicated picture. But what seem to be happening now is a new battlefront in the TV landscape, even in the tiny world of Patriot League football, where content providers do battle over things like a Lafayette/Georgetown game and potentially shuffling games like Princeton/Lehigh out of their broadcasts. Some think this is good, shifting all these games either to cable fiefdoms, a national outfit like CBS College Sports (thus necessitating scheduling around, say, Colorado State/Air Force broadcasts), or even just the internet, where the savvy can click to watch the games. But I don't. Something is getting lost here.

[MplsBison]

I think people are missing the point of the entire discussion.

This has nothing to do with the internet and things that are streamed live - which, despite its growth, is still a mere fraction of the number of eyeballs glued to regular TV sets. It's about a cable company, giving content to a over-the-air local TV network, potentially crowding out coverage of their local FCS team in order to show... Central Michigan vs. Western Michigan.

It's fine to believe in a world of designing your TV own content packages, all for free, while just paying your ISP a monthly fee to "broadcast" the content in your home. But the truth is that: if channels like WFMZ 69 stop broadcasting FCS football games, that's a real bad development for FCS football in general. I mean, all of us here are crazy, wiring our homes to stream ESPN3 and our favorite FCS teams clearly through our flat-screen TVs. But there are a heck of a lot more people in a general local community that will tune to a Lehigh game on WFMZ 69, but will never go through the "hassle" of getting the games online.

In urban areas, these battles have been waged and, largely, lost. But channels in less urban areas, like WFMZ 69, seem to be a new front on the battlefield, and it seems like the potential death knell of something that most of us take for granted.

For example, suppose North Dakota's NBC stations said, "We've just secured a deal where we'll now be broadcasting more Notre Dame and Pac-12 football, and as for your Fightin' Sioux and Bison games, well, there's always the internet." Would that really be acceptable? Would all those fans that follow North Dakota football that losing access to the games - would that really be OK, for the Universities or the fans?

Of course it would be acceptable. That's the point - the internet is a better medium for FCS football than "regular" TV.

Again -- not the studio's fault that old people are scared of the internet or inept at connecting their computer to their TV.

[Bogus Megapardus]

LFN - given current FCC regulations, it's very important (IMHO) to have games on FCC-assigned, over-the-air broadcast television stations, even if those stations are as middling as WFMZ-69 and WBPH-60 in the Lehigh Valley. That's because "local content" regulations require cable and satellite companies in the region to assign a them a slot in their respective regions. Cable and satellite don't have to assign a slot to programming from other cable operators (such as Service Electric Time Warner and Verizon), although they can agree to do so, of course.

The Lafayette Sports Network teams with RCN cable to produce its games, as you know. Lafayette games, were they carried only on RCN cable, wouldn't have to be picked up by Comcast, DirecTV or Dish Network, etc. in the Philadelphia/New Jersey region. But because local WBPH-60 broadcasts the games over the air (quite apart from RCN), the other cable and satellite distributors must carry them as well. For example, WBPH is carried on Comcast channel 21 in and around Trenton, NJ. Comcast would not be required to assign a slot to RCN-4. Believe it or not, Verizon FiOS also carries WBPH in the region.

All of this might change in the future (I know that Big Cable doesn't really like being told how to assign their slots) but for right now, true broadcast television makes a HUGE difference for this reason. When a Comcast, satellite, or other cable subscriber in the region scans his/her menu for "Sports" on a Saturday afternoon, there always will be a Lafayette game available. That's a big plus, and Lafayette seems to know it.


NB to MplsBison - You shouldn't let people call you "old, scared and inept" like that. You're not that old.

[MplsBison]

LFN - given current FCC regulations, it's very important (IMHO) to have games on FCC-assigned, over-the-air broadcast television stations, even if those stations are as middling as WFMZ-69 and WBPH-60 in the Lehigh Valley. That's because "local content" regulations require cable and satellite companies in the region to assign a them a slot in their respective regions. Cable and satellite don't have to assign a slot to programming from other cable operators (such as Service Electric Time Warner and Verizon), although they can agree to do so, of course.

The Lafayette Sports Network teams with RCN cable to produce its games, as you know. Lafayette games, were they carried only on RCN cable, wouldn't have to be picked up by Comcast, DirecTV or Dish Network, etc. in the Philadelphia/New Jersey region. But because local WBPH-60 broadcasts the games over the air (quite apart from RCN), the other cable and satellite distributors must carry them as well. For example, WBPH is carried on Comcast channel 21 in and around Trenton, NJ. Comcast would not be required to assign a slot to RCN-4. Believe it or not, Verizon FiOS also carries WBPH in the region.

All of this might change in the future (I know that Big Cable doesn't really like being told how to assign their slots) but for right now, true broadcast television makes a HUGE difference for this reason. When a Comcast, satellite, or other cable subscriber in the region scans his/her menu for "Sports" on a Saturday afternoon, there always will be a Lafayette game available. That's a big plus, and Lafayette seems to know it.

Yeah but how long is that going to last? I already see commercials from local OTA stations trying to scare people about what would happen if funding goes away.

It's moot because OTA is going to end in our lifetimes. Once the big studios no longer need their local networks to distribute their content, what's the point of paying all that money to own, operate and maintain MW transmitter towers when everyone just streams the content from the internet or cable/satellite?


How many people actually rely on OTA signals to get TV? It's gotta be falling off a cliff if it isn't already down there. Once the funding goes - so do the stations.

[Bogus Megapardus]

How many people actually rely on OTA signals to get TV? It's gotta be falling off a cliff if it isn't already down there. Once the funding goes - so do the stations.

In the future, the medium of transmission will become less and less relevant as wired and digital microwave technology improves. Still, homes will have to be re-wired to take advantage of the technology. 4G/5G-like mobile telephony systems are becoming compressed to the limits of their capacity and cannot be expected to handle an enormous amount of high-definition video streaming over a (presently) narrow allocation of bandwidth.

OTA digital, right now, provides by far the sharpest, clearest HDTV transmission. It doesn't get processed through lossy compression/decompression algorithms the way cable and satellite signals do, and certainly not the way "webcast" signals do.

Even though I have Comcast cable, I still watch sports (Lafayette, Eagles, Phillies) using an OTA antenna because it's by far the best picture. Many, many others I know do the same thing. It's also free. Taking away "free" from the public always has political consequences.

[alvinkayak6]

I'm trying to figure out this narrative you're talking about.

Follow the money trail, friend. ESPN owns the rights for just about every bowl game. Literally like 30 out of 34 or something. ESPN regional sells the rights to those games. ESPN is in bed with the Bowl Subdivision. Look how many times you see Nick Saban and Bob Stoops on TV because they are the top 2 teams for the BCS narrative. Have you ever seen an "expert" on there who wasn't associated with an Ohio State or Notre Dame or some top BCS team. Heavens, imagine what it would take for a D-2 expert to get on ESPN.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Follow the money trail, friend. ESPN owns the rights for just about every bowl game. Literally like 30 out of 34 or something. ESPN regional sells the rights to those games. ESPN is in bed with the Bowl Subdivision. Look how many times you see Nick Saban and Bob Stoops on TV because they are the top 2 teams for the BCS narrative. Have you ever seen an "expert" on there who wasn't associated with an Ohio State or Notre Dame or some top BCS team. Heavens, imagine what it would take for a D-2 expert to get on ESPN.

I don't disagree with that part of the narrative, but I'm struggling to see how WFMZ69 fits in this anywhere.

[coover]

Yes hockey that niche sports some fans (I don't have to tell you from what school) throw at us all the time. Its kind of a big sport over here and in the northeast. Also big enough now that other teams of FBS proportion is thinking of adding. Could you imagine USC or Alabama playing hockey?? It may come true, look at Penn State.

Actually, Darell, I do believe that USC (the one in Southern California) does have a "club" level Hockey Team. Hockey is bigger here, in Southern Cal, than most folks outside the area think. We've got two NHL teams, an EHL team, some Colleges and Universities have "club" level teams, and there is actually a league for High School teams (sponsored by the Anaheim Ducks) which has, I believe, 12 schools involved, some with both Varsity and Junior Varsity clubs.

As a Hockey fan living in the mountains of Southern California, I wish to thank UND for their TV Hockey games, as I can frequently find them on one of my cable channels. Go Sioux Hockey!

[coover]

But in the end its all about the ratings!! Ratings =$$$

Actually, ratings are not as important as revenue.

Recently, I had as short (very short) email conversation with the Athletic Director at Cal Poly relating to the possibility of the Fox Sports West Network carrying some Cal Poly Football games. According to him, the reason they would not take the feeds (from the local SLO television channel) had to do with guaranteed sponsorship. Ratings was not important. If Fox Sports has enough guaranteed sponsors paying a guaranteed amount, they'd put it on their cable feed.

[Jaguar79]

Hmmmm, There is SOME FCS on ESPN almost weekly ...

[NHwildEcat]

Hockey is definitely a cult sport.

I imagine it's hard to get into if you didn't play.

You are right. I personally did not play hockey but I love it and have always loved it! My parents had no money so I suppose that might be why I didn't play, but I played basketball and that game bores me to death...esp. at the NBA level. (That is probably because of ESPN and the NBA itself).

I go to games at all levels, had Boston Bruins season tickets till I moved further north. I go to AHL games since Manchester Monarchs are in my backyard and of course the main course of hockey in NH is UNH. I also go to high school games, esp. if my cousins are playing. The best part, and I don't know how it is in other states, but all of our HS championships are played on 1 Sunday in March starting with a 10 am Girls Championship and lasting until the evening with the D1 Championship!